Month: January 2026

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

2026 INSC 43 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders etc. Act, 1986 — Section 3(2) — Preventive Detention — Grounds for Detention — Requirement of finding ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ — Detenu, a ‘drug offender’, was detained based on three criminal cases involving Ganja, with an apprehension that if released on bail, she would engage in similar activities — Held, mere apprehension that the detenu, if released on bail, would be likely to indulge in similar crimes would not be a sufficient ground for ordering preventive detention — Order of detention failed to indicate how the detenu’s activities were prejudicial to ‘public order’ as opposed to ‘law and order’ and was therefore unsustainable. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)

2026 INSC 41 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROSHINI DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. ) Criminal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 2(s) and 2(o) — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 — Sections 2(f), 100, 101, 102 — Quashing of FIRs — Jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station post-bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh — High Court quashed Anti-Corruption Bureau FIRs on hyper-technical ground of lack of specific notification under Section 2(s) CrPC for the relocated ACB office (Vijayawada) after the State Reorganisation — Held: The High Court’s approach leads to a travesty of justice by nipping investigations in the bud on hyper-technical grounds — Pre-bifurcation Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 268 dated 12.09.2003) declaring ACB offices as Police Stations, coupled with the express provisions of the 2014 Act (Sections 100 and 102), ensures continuity of “law” (which includes notifications/orders) in the successor State of Andhra Pradesh without requiring fresh adoption or notification — Section 102 of the 2014 Act facilitates courts/authorities to construe the existing law to apply to the new State, even absent specific adoption — Subsequent clarificatory G.O.Ms. No. 137 (14.09.2022) merely restates the position and its non-retroactive application reasoning by High Court is untenable — Hyper-technical reasoning, ignoring the spirit of the law and the continuity mandated by the Reorganisation Act, cannot be sustained. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24)

2026 INSC 37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE JOINT DIRECTOR (RAYALASEEMA), ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, A.P. AND ANOTHER ETC. Vs. DAYAM PEDA RANGA RAO ETC. ( Before : M. M.…

Service Matters

Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)

2026 INSC 38 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. BHAWANA MISHRA ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings — Principles governing exercise of power — High Court must exercise power sparingly, cautiously, and avoid usurping function of trial court or conducting mini-trial — Only requirement is to examine whether uncontroverted allegations in FIR, taken at face value, disclose commission of any cognizable offence — Reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of evidence is not for summary determination under Section 482 CrPC; it is a matter for trial court — Where factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited — Reference to Bhajan Lal case delineating categories for quashing (Paras 20-24, 30, 31).

2026 INSC 39 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C.S. PRASAD Vs. C. SATYAKUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Separate Causes of Action — Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Where multiple cheques are issued in relation to the same underlying liability, but are distinct instruments (drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, and dishonoured separately), each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act — The fact that two complaints relate to the same transaction does not bar parallel prosecution, especially where the statutory requirements of presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are fulfilled separately for each instrument — High Court erred in quashing one complaint on the ground that two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying liability amounted to an abuse of process of law, as this violated the principle of separate cause of action for distinct cheque instruments. (Paras 33, 35, 45(a))

2026 INSC 40 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMIT BANSAL Vs. M/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I)

2026 INSC 42 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )…

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g), 10 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2), 352 — Cancellation of Bail — Allegations of repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault (gang rape) of a minor victim aged 14, committed under armed threat (katta), and recording the act for blackmail — High Court granting bail set aside by Supreme Court — Bail order found to suffer from serious infirmities as it failed to consider the heinous nature and gravity of the offence, the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act, and prima facie material (victim’s statement and medico-legal report) establishing the commission of the offence — Omission to notice the filing of the chargesheet prior to the bail order rendered the exercise of discretion erroneous. (Paras 4, 8.1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16)

2026 INSC 44 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH X Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 302, 304 Part II, 147, 149 — Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder — Distinction between Murder (Section 302) and Culpable Homicide (Section 304) — Circumstances warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II — Initial conviction under Section 302/149 altered by High Court to Section 304 Part II, IPC — Incident arising from sudden quarrel and group fight (free fight) where two rival parties attacked each other — Both sides suffered injuries — Common object for forming an unlawful assembly (Section 149) not established in a free fight scenario, negating charges under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC — Individual role of appellant assessed: causing fatal head injury with a lathi — In a sudden group clash without premeditation, where the appellant also suffered serious injuries, the intention to cause death (requisite for Section 302) is negated, but knowledge that the act (hitting vulnerable part like head with lathi) was likely to cause death is inferred (Section 304 Part II) — Offence rightly reduced to Section 304 Part II, IPC. (Paras 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6)

2026 INSC 45 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIKRISHNA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( Before : K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 28, 47(vii), 2(47), 2(14) — Taxability of Amalgamation — Shares held as Stock-in-Trade vs. Capital Assets — Receipt of shares of amalgamated company in lieu of shares of amalgamating company — If the shares of the amalgamating company were held as capital assets, the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company is a “transfer” under Section 2(47) but exempt from Capital Gains tax under Section 47(vii), provided the requirements of that section are met (amalgamated company is Indian, transfer in consideration of allotment of shares). (Paras 2, 8.3, 12, 12.1, 27)

2026 INSC 46 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – II, NEW DELHI ( Before : J.B.…

You missed